Abstract

Researchers acknowledge individual differences about morality through concepts of temperament, character, personality, or values. The Nine Types of Temperament Model (NTTM), which explores human behaviors through individual differences, claims to explain the psychological organization of individuals through temperament, character, and personality concepts. This study investigates the relationship between morality, values, vices and individual differences in the context of temperament and proposes a method that discusses whether a temperament-based approach offers a new conceptualization, perspective, and approach to morality, as presented by NTTM. Firstly, this study examines the relationship between concepts of temperament, character, personality, values and morality. Subsequently, it suggests that temperament constitutes the primary root of virtues and vices and that temperament types offer society bipolar morality traits (positive and negative). Moreover, it suggests that traits that are accepted as virtues or vices could be embraced at two levels, a conceptual and individual one. The conceptual approach that this study proposes can be the main useful resource that explains the conditions of the approach, development, and methodology for being a moral person at an individual level.

Keywords

Introduction

Moral concept, which has an important function in both
individual and social life, is the object of attention and discussion of philosophers, psychologists, educators, and
theologians, who frequently ask questions regarding what
morality is, how morality develops, and how morality is shaped.
The studies that developmental and functional features focused
(exp. individual moral development, moral cognition and moral
conduct prossess) and conceptional features focused (exp. what
is the conceptional root of morality, what is the meaning of
morality concept in individual or social life) investigates the
morality in the literature. In this study, we will focus the
conceptional features and will suggest a new conceptional
approach by looking at individual perspective.

In a social context, morality is a system that is developed by
human beings in order to work and live together and that
includes norms and reasons [1]. According to Filip et al. [2]
morality is a popular consensus and societal balance gained
about how individuals should behave. In a more general context,
morality is described as set of rules and principles that should be
followed [3,4] says morality have represented gene-culture
coevolution for evolutionary history. In the individual context
morality is described as a certain understanding of self-respect
values which are related to how an individual lives and acts [5].

Also there are some studies that investigating the morality
from the point of individual differences (in the context of
personality, character, values or vices) besides the studies that
the morality’s individual or social side emphasized in the
literature. For example Lifton [6] indicates that individual
differences in morality development are parallel to individual
differences in personality development. According to Meindl et
al. [7] if the morality investigates from the personological based
approach, the individual differences in moral cognition and behaviors will be clarify consistently. Fleeson, et al. [8]
emphasizes the importance of the individual differences in
moral development should be researched from the personality and character based approach. Jonason et al. [9], personality
traits which provides individual differences in morality, operate
in the social world. Cohen and Morse [10] consider the morality
focus through the moral character concept and conceptualized
the moral character as an individual’s disposition to think, feel,
and behave in an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the
subset of individual differences relevant to morality. For example
fairness, helpfulness, reliability, solidarity and hospitality. In
addition, values, which constitute an important concept in
experiencing morality, should be considered through individual
differences. For example, Bilsky and Schwartz [11] suggest that
values are individual preferences that can be observed in
socializing and are relatively stable. According to Timmons [12],
virtues should be described as traits that are brought to the
forefront of the moral evaluation of individuals in a positive way,
and as traits that determine the richness of typical behaviors,
emotions, and thoughts. Vices are traits that play a role in the
negative evaluation of individuals and they are relatively stable
traits of character or mind [12]. For example jealousy, arrogance,
manipulation, hypocrisy, gossiping, and vengefulness.

Besides the researchers who study on the relation between
morality and individual differences, many researchers study on
the roots of human morality by asking whether human morality
has innate roots or not. According to Haidt’s claim while nativists believe morality is purely innate, empiricists believe that
humans are blank slates at birth; morality emerges from
parental or societal instruction [13]. Haidt (the social intuitionist
model’s proposer) says morality is take shape with enculturated
social experience and it has an innate root [14,15]. Some
researchers suggest that moral traits, which individuals carry as
potentially innate structure, are shaped by temperament [16]. In
addition to this, Kagan associates moral behavior patterns with
activity patterns in the amygdala and suggests that the
differences in moral behavior patterns of individuals are shaped
according to temperament, which is innate [17].

The Nine Types of Temperament Model (NTTM), which
explores human behaviors through innate individual differences,
embraces the psychological organization of individuals through
temperament, character, and personality concepts [18,19].
According to The Nine Types of Temperament Model (NTTM),
temperament is a psychological building block that is innate,
does not change during the lifetime, determines a person’s basic
seeking, perception, motivation, and tendencies, and forms the
roots of individual differences [20,21]. At the same time,
temperament includes both potential and risky traits according
to seeking, perception, motivation, and tendencies of individuals
(Table 1) [20,22].

Temperament Types

Positive Potentials

Risky Features

Ntt1-Perfection Seeking

Being fair (being careful of not doing injustice or not being exposed to injustice too much), being hardworking, being clear and organized, following rules, planning, being patient

Becoming easily stressed/angry, interfering in mistakes and deficits of people quickly/too much, not being able to relax (being too serious),being excessively hypercritical and strict

Ntt2-Seeking to Feel Emotions

Caring about relationships/attachment, sincerity/warmth, compassion, helpfulness and sacrifice, communication skills, being strong, being friendly, being forgiving

Being affected easily (being sad, crying), being touchy and reproachful, being insistent and cohesive, being jealous

Ntt3-Admirable Self Image Seeking

Motivation for success/reaching targets, resolution of work, not caring about negative feeling, being practical, being a champion in competition, motivating people

Individualism, having an original identity, original creativity, empathy and sensitivity, sincerity and neutrality, compassion, a tiny artistic/aesthetic perspective

Being vulnerable, being jealous/envious (“I Want This Too”), being rebellious and contradictious, being melancholic

Ntt5-Seeking the Meaning of Knowledge

Being introvert, being a quiet observer, curious about knowing and learning, being a researcher, being an expert on an interesting topic (knowing everything about a topic), poor sense of humor, analytical thinking/abstraction/conceptualization

Being too cold and distant, being distant from emotions, being stingy, being skeptical

Ntt6-Intellectual Serenity Seeking

Caring about trust and loyalty, being a team player, (being adaptable in a group), being deliberate, being rigorous and organized, being responsible, recognizing ambivalences, being canny

Being indecisive, being anxious/worried, inefficacy/insecurity, being dependent

Ntt7-Seeking Joy of Discovery

Being curious about discovery, being extrovert and sociable, being physically active and energetic, being cheerful/witty, being optimistic, being practical

Get bored easily/not being able to tolerate anxiety, having attention deficit, being too active, being disorganized, being fickle

Ntt8-Absolute Power Seeking

Being a leader, acting quickly, making strong decisions (deciding easily and confidently), being brave, being protective (prohibitive, protecting weak and needy people)

Being enduring/steady, being generous, being direct/outspoken

Ntt9-Sensory Motor Comfort Seeking

Being calm and adaptive, avoiding conflicts, being peaceful, being a mediator, being patient,being flexible/acquiescent

Being lazy, being unable to say no, stubborn, being shy

Table 1: Traits of nine types of temperament model types.

The Nine Types of Temperament Model (NTTM) suggests that
temperament constitutes the root of personality, shapes behavioral, emotional, and cognitive traits of individuals for life,
and determines a person’s tendencies of perception regarding individual and social events or situations and regarding their
response to situations [23,24]. According to NTTM, character
develops as long as temperament traits present clarity and
continuity [19]. Because of that, personality causes
temperament to interact with internal (gender, intelligence, age, biological traits) and external factors (family, education, culture)
[18,21]. Moreover, when individuals have traits that are part of
their temperament types, as a result of this interaction, they can
be described as the natural side of personality (i.e., natural
personality) [21,25]. In addition, when individuals learn traits
that are not their own temperament types, in terms of family,
education, culture, and belief, these can be explained as the
synthetic side of personality (i.e., synthetic personality) [21,26].

By embracing human nature and psychology in an integrative
way, it may be possible to understand the conceptual and
behavioral roots of morality and values and to evaluate them in
a comprehensive way. It has been accepted that morality is
closely related to human nature and individual differences [27].
Also some concepts like character, personality, virtues and vices
are appertaining to moral, related with individual differences
too. Individual differences are directly related to temperament
[28]. In this way, it is possible that morality correlates with
temperament. However, a contemporary theory that explains
moral concept based on a temperament approach could not be
found among the literature. The purpose of this study is
investigate the relationship between morality, values, vices and
individual differences in the context of temperament and
proposes a method that discusses whether a temperamentbased
approach offers a new conceptualization, perspective,
and approach to morality, as presented by NTTM.

Method

Data collection and procedure

This study includes articles published between 1970 and 2017
and e-books about morality without date limit. Articles were
scanned in PsycINFO, ebscohost/academic, eric, the social
science research network (SSRN), journal storage (JSTOR),
Google Scholar and PubMed database, whereas e-books were
scanned in PsycINFO, ebscohost/academic, eric, the social
science research network (SSRN), journal storage (JSTOR),
Google Scholar and PubMed database through search engines
using the word ‘morality’. These investigations were evaluated
as abstracts, including temperament, character, personality, and
NTTM words (3 in PsycINFO, 53 in eric, 122 in SSRN, 9.722 in
JSTOR, 19.800 in Google Scholar, 12 in PubMed). Between these,
189 articles and 46 books that embrace morality conceptually
were investigated. Sources that are not related to the main
propositions of this study were eliminated. In total, 31 articles
and 18 books were added to the study.

Results

The results show that moral concept, which has various
responses in social and individual contexts, is embraced by many
researchers in relation to individual differences. These
researchers regard moral and individual differences as two different concepts that are parallel to each other. Some of them
point out that individual differences are rooted in moral
concept. Moreover, character, personality and values, which are
other concepts related to morality, are described as concepts
that determine individual differences and that are influenced by
individual differences.

However, even when researchers associate morality with
many parameters, they arrive at the conclusion that morality has
an innate root and that the concept that constitutes this root
may be temperament. In addition to this, no approach is
observed that associates the root of moral concept with
morality and embraces the relationship between temperament,
character, personality and value concepts in an explicit integrative organization.

NTTM, which is the focus of this study, embraces the concept
of temperament, which consists of individual differences, and
explains the relationship between temperament, character, and
personality concepts consistently. From this perspective, the
root of morality, which is a product of human nature, is based on
the concept of temperament that underlies human nature and
individual differences. Moreover, values, which constitute
morality, originate from temperament traits, which, in turn,
shape behavioral, emotional, and cognitive patterns. Traits
belonging to temperament types that are described in NTTM
contribute bipolar values (virtues and vices) conceptually. In that
way, moral traits receive responses in both individual contexts
and society, which consists of individuals in the context of
temperament traits. It can be concluded that virtues and vices
can be embraced in two dimensions: a conceptual and individual
level.

Discussion

The relationship between morality and some basic concepts,
such as character, personality and values, and individual
differences, will be explored in the context of temperament and
the outcome will be predicted in this section. Subsequently, the
perspective of NTTM will be used to explain the similarities and
differences in a comparative and comprehensive way. Finally, a
general proposal regarding the NTTM’s approach to
temperament and moral values will be presented.

Relationship between Character and
Personality in the Context of Individual Differences

Roback [29] proposes that character and morality, which are
very important concepts of human nature, should be embraced
in the context of temperament, which is a very important
concept for exploring human nature; he argues that
psychologists generally ignore this point. However there are
some studies that investigate the relation with morality and
temperament in the contemporary literature. For example,
Kochanska and Aksan [30] embrace morality in the context of
temperament and argue that temperament traits and
socialization in the family context underlie the roots of individual
differences in moral development. We also argue that temperament traits constitute the roots of individual differences
in moral development. But if moral development of family
members in socialization in the family context is considered to
be rooted in temperament types, it ignores the fact that
temperament is a primary effective factor.

McKinnon [31] suggests that character can be examined in
three groups: naturalist, ethical, and metaphysical. From the
naturalist perspective, character formation is a part of human
nature and based on biological tendencies. From the ethical
perspective, character presents the virtues and vices of a
person, but is not personally identifiable. For example, being
helpful is not a personally identifiable trait; however, it could be
a character trait. From the metaphysical perspective, character is
related to personally identifiable traits and also related to an
individual’s temperament [31]. Cloninger embraces character as
a component of personality [32,33]. At the same time, he
contends that character has conscious effects on the maturity of
personality [34]. According to Cloninger [35,36], character is
defined by individual differences that develop gradually as long
as it becomes more mature through life experience and insight
in the way of an individual’s targets and values. According to
NTTM, character is a behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
pattern that derives from temperament, constitutes the most
remarkable stable traits of personality, and is very resistant to
change [19]. In another words, character clearly shows itself in
personality and is related to personality in the context of
expressing oneself, instead of being an additional component of
personality [19]. In this context, it can be suggested that
character is determinant of individual differences and derives
from temperament, parallel to both the metaphysical and
naturalist perspective, and that it can also be a natural part of
psychological development.

On the other hand, according to Cloninger [37] character
matures in a stepwise manner in increments from infancy
through late adulthood with temperament configuration and
social education be interaction. In contrast, Cloninger suggests
that the character dimension of self-transcendence shows the
moral and spiritual maturity of an individual [38]. When as
Josefsson et al. [39] argue that even though maturity increases
with age, the scores of character dimension, when challenging
oneself, decrease in a group. Moreover, individuals who
challenge themselves are defined as individuals with a selfforgetful
(intuitive and light), transpersonal (holistic and joyful),
and spiritual perspective [36]. However, when we consider
NTTM’s perspective, traits such as being intuitive (NTT6, NTT4),
light, holistic (integrative) (NTT9), and joyful (NTT7) are innate
temperament traits, which indicate individual differences rather
than character traits, which, in turn, show moral maturity
[20,40,41]. At the same time, these traits can be considered as
an indicator of moral maturity and can also be presented
automatically by their own self [19,23]. It can be suggested that
having a spiritual perspective without these traits is related to
the perception, realization, and awareness levels of the psyche
instead of a character trait that is part of natural psychological
development.

Another important concept for understanding morality is
personality. Fleeson et al. [8] defend that it is necessary to explore morality from a personality perspective in order to
explain individual differences in the presentation of morality
traits and in the manifestation and function of morality traits in
an individual’s life. In addition to this view, we believe that a
perspective that explains morality through individual differences
should contain both personality and temperament concepts,
which explain the structural root of individual differences. While
the manifestation of traits that constitute morality in an
individual’s life is related to personality, the innate root of
mechanisms that constitute morality is related to temperament.

Relationship between Temperament and Value Concept

Values are another important concept for understanding
morality, and are described as desirable principles, criteria, and
qualities [42]. Chen [43] pays attention to the individual
differences in embracing morality and virtues, and argues that
virtuous individuals have different values because of
temperamental differences. We believe that temperamental
differences underlie virtues as well as vices.

Vauclair, Wilson, and Fischer [44] propose that moral values
should be explored in two categories: international and culturespecific.
Schwartz [45] approaches morality values in two
dimensions: a cultural and individual level.

We propose that virtues and vices should be discussed at two
levels: a) at a conceptual level corresponding with social
meaning, and b) at an individual level corresponding with the
experience of the individual. We argue that the conceptual
meaning of a virtue or a trait is different from how it
corresponds with an individual’s life (i.e., in two ways, as
overdoing-undoing and as situational suitability). A virtue can be
described as an ideal trait, which can be accepted as absolutely
positive at a social level. However, this virtue cannot always be
experienced positively during an individual’s life. For example,
being determined is a positive trait in a conceptual way [46].
However, this trait cannot always be presented positively at an
individual level; it can even be seen as a sign of overdoing, such
as being too ambitious or having intolerance to failure, in terms
of overdoing-undoing [48]. Moreover, it can come across as a
person working determinedly at tasks that are not suitable to his
or her capacity/at which he or she cannot be successful. In
contrast, a trait that is accepted as negative/bad is bad overall at
a conceptual level. For example, the trait of being suspicious is
accepted as bad overall [24,46]. However, when this trait is
considered at an individual level/in accordance with individual
experience, it cannot be experienced as completely negative.
For example, in terms of overdoing-undoing, being generally
suspicious or presenting suspiciousness in uncertain and risky
situations can be seen as necessary and positive for considering
dangers and taking measures, instead of being seen as negative
[47,48].

Peterson and Seligman [49] suggest that there are six core
virtues and that there are twenty-four virtues, in summary,
which they call character power in their study, in which they
investigate main virtues and character traits. We argue that nine
temperament types, each with their potential and risky traits, present bipolar moral values (virtues and vices) primarily to the
social pool (Table 2). Traits that belong to all temperament types
and are accepted as positive generally consist of a majority from
the social pool of moral virtues. Potentially risky traits of
individuals, in terms of their temperament type, are related to
their individual morality. Moreover, when an individual presents
potential traits in terms of his or her temperament type
belonging to his or her natural personality as well as virtues, which he or she gains through family, education, and social
environment related to his or her synthetic personality [24,26],
it shows his or her virtues in terms of his or her individual limits.
At the same time, the capacity to present virtuous traits
belonging to other temperament types means that the
existential moral level of an individual reaches a moral maturity
level that is except and over limits of individual’s existence.

However, it can be suggested that risky traits belonging to all
temperament types constitute the majority of vices in the social
pool. Individual bad (negative) morality can be described as an
individual presenting risky traits that are part of his or her
natural personality in an excessive way, as well as presenting
risky traits that he or she learns later in life as part of his or her
synthetic personality, which is affected by family, school, or
social environment. The table below shows the bipolar (positive
and negative) moral values that we propose (Table 2).

Temperament Types

Virtues

Vices

Ntt1-Perfection Seeking

Being fair, being responsible, considering ceremony and propriety, being diligent, being planned, clean, and organized, being tenacious and stable

Being reliable, loyal, cautious, being thrifty, devoting oneself, being economical

Cheeseparing, questioning a lot, being factious, suspicious, insecure

Ntt7-Seeking Joy of Discovery

Being a visionary, being open to innovation, being innovatively creative, cheerful and positive

Being a hedonist, a liar, unstable, desultory, reckless, slapdash, extravagant

Ntt8-Absolute Power Seeking

Being a leader, being brave, generous, protecting weak and powerless people, being steady, being decisive, straightforward, manly

Being despotic and prone to violence, being grandiose, dominating, being cruel

Ntt9-Sensory Motor Comfort Seeking

Being peaceful, patient, being acquiescent, perceiving without judging, being flexible, being tolerant, being soft and adaptable

Being lazy and stubborn, being deprived of initiative

Table 2: Primary values which temperament types present to social pool according to NTTM.

Rokeach [50] divides values into two groups: terminal values
and instrumental values. According to this classification, when
terminal values contain main factors of safety, happiness, and
equality, instrumental values contain values that are used for
reaching these main factors. We argue that the roots of values
are based on primary positive values, except for those
mentioned in Table 2, such as respect for others, modesty,
hospitality, solidarity, saving animals and the environment, and
opposing all uncivilized things in the world. Therefore, values
that emerge from main temperament types can be considered
as primary values. Values that originate and take their root and
motivation from primary values can be described as secondary
values. Moreover, it can be suggested that the way in which an
individual perceives and experiences secondary values may be associated with that individual’s temperament type. In this
context, while we embrace solidarity values that can be
accepted as secondary values, when for an individual with NTT1
solidarity means that people uniting for the same ideal support
each other [46], for an individual with NTT6, solidarity can mean
that individuals come together, unite their powers, and
constitute a more reliable and powerful group/team [47].
Alternatively, for an individual with NTT2, hospitality value can
be described as a relationship tool to make people happy, to
exhibit their love, and to endear themselves to people [25].
Meeting other people’s needs, providing the best offers, and
making people comfortable can be tools to show existence and
power for an individual with NTT8 [47].

In contrast, there are also vices, such as jugglery, hypocrisy,
gossiping, and vengefulness, as well as vices that belong to all
temperament types. However, we argue that these values can
be divided into primary (originated from temperament types)
and secondary (taking roots and motivation from primary traits),
similar to virtues. For example, when jugglery is a way for an
individual with NTT3 to make their own profit and reach their
target [25], it can be the shortest and most practical way to gain
pleasure for an individual with NTT7 [46].

Conclusion

In conclusion, we suggest that temperamental differences
underlie the psychological root of morality, based on individual
differences. Generally, when seen from the perspective of
NTTM, character can be explained as part of natural
psychological development related to temperament and
individual differences, rather than as a moral concept.
Moreover, we propose that the side of morality based on innate
temperament types expresses itself through natural personality,
and that the side that is learned later in life/from the
environment expresses itself through synthetic personality. In
this context, NTTM, which embraces the relationship between
temperament, character, and personality, should be considered
to constitute a new conceptualization of morality.

We argue that every temperament type presents bipolar
(positive and negative) moral traits to society conceptually, each
with their potential and risky traits. These concepts, which
originate from temperament types and are characterized by
different temperament types, constitute the primary basis of
bad moral traits. However, the traits of virtues and vices can be
considered at two levels: a conceptual and individual level.

This study focuses mostly on the conceptual dimension, which
introduces a new moral conceptualization and suggested
approach. However, the fact that the relationship between
morality and temperament types is not tested by clinical and
experimental studies can be considered as a limitation of this
study. Investigating the relationships between moral perception,
behavior, and temperament types through studies that use
statistical methods can provide important contributions to
literature.

Another limitation of this study is the fact that it stays outside
the scope of exploring the topic of our suggested approach;
hence, the developmental and methodological conditions of
being a moral person at the individual level are left for future
studies. Moreover, the conceptual approach that this study
proposes can be the main useful resource that explains the
conditions of the approach, development, and methodology for
being a moral person at an individual level.

Selçuk Z, Yılmaz ED, Ünal Ö (2015)A proposal about multidisciplinary nature of temperament: A perspective of individual differences based on temperament according to nine types temperament model in preschool education. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology2-8.